Particulate matter chemical component concentrations and sources in settings of household solid fuel use

Abstract

Particulate matter (PM) air pollution derives from combustion and non-combustion sources and consists of various chemical species that may differentially impact human health and climate. Previous reviews of PM chemical component concentrations and sources focus on high-income urban settings, which likely differ from the low- and middle-income settings where solid fuel (ie, coal, biomass) is commonly burned for cooking and heating. We aimed to summarize the concentrations of PM chemical components and their contributing sources in settings where solid fuel is burned. We searched the literature for studies that reported PM component concentrations from homes, personal exposures, and direct stove emissions under uncontrolled, real-world conditions. We calculated weighted mean daily concentrations for select PM components and compared sources of PM determined by source apportionment. Our search criteria yielded 48 studies conducted in 12 countries. Weighted mean daily cooking area concentrations of elemental carbon, organic carbon, and benzo(a)pyrene were 18.8 μg m , 74.0 μg m , and 155 ng m , respectively. Solid fuel combustion explained 29%-48% of principal component/factor analysis variance and 41%-87% of PM mass determined by positive matrix factorization. Multiple indoor and outdoor sources impacted PM concentrations and composition in these settings, including solid fuel burning, mobile emissions, dust, and solid waste burning.

Impacts of stove/fuel use and outdoor air pollution on chemical composition of household particulate matter

“…Benzo[a]pyrene, the only one of these compounds classified as a Group 1 carcinogen, was not detected in the sample with exclusive LPG/electric use, but exceeded 40 ng/m 3 in the household samples using all three stoves and only the traditional stoves. Compared to other cooking area benzo[a]pyrene concentrations summarized by Secrest et al in a recent review, these are much lower than the concentrations recorded in other rural Chinese households cooking with biomass (means: 100‐636 ng/m 3 ) but still above the European Commission guideline value of 1 ng/m 3 . In contrast to high PAH concentrations in homes burning biomass, Ruiz et al reported much lower PAH levels in homes using electric, compressed natural gas (CNG), and LPG stoves: Average (±SD) indoor concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene were 1.9 ± 0.5, 2.0 ± 0.9, and 1.5 ± 0.6 ng/m 3 in households with electric, CNG, and LPG stoves, respectively.…”

“…Recent reviews of indoor air pollution and personal exposures in the context of household solid fuel combustion have recommended further research on the chemical components and sources of indoor and personal exposure PM 2.5 . This research can provide insight on several levels: On a more detailed level, chemical components and sources contributing to particle mass are highly relevant to the health impacts of exposure to those particles.…”

Radiative Effects of Residential Sector Emissions in China: Sensitivity to Uncertainty in Black Carbon Emissions

“…Residential sector emissions are challenging to quantify reliably because of the wide range of imperfect conditions under which fuels are burned, limited emissions measurements (particularly field measurements of cookstoves being used under realistic conditions), and limited data on activity usage Coffey et al, 2017;Secrest et al, 2017). We probe this uncertainty using sensitivity scenarios with low and high BC:TC ratio of residential sector emissions, using the range of estimates compiled by Lacey and Henze (2015).…”

“…Aerosol emissions from inefficient cookstoves are important contributors to indoor and ambient air pollution, increasing premature mortality in adults and children Chafe et al, 2014;Cohen et al, 2017;Lelieveld et al, 2015;Liu et al, 2016;Naeher et al, 2007). However, aerosol emissions from the residential sector are subject to large uncertainties in their magnitude and composition Carter et al, 2016;Coffey et al, 2017;Secrest et al, 2017;Stockwell et al, 2015;Zhang et al, 2009). However, aerosol emissions from the residential sector are subject to large uncertainties in their magnitude and composition Carter et al, 2016;Coffey et al, 2017;Secrest et al, 2017;Stockwell et al, 2015;Zhang et al, 2009).…”

“…The high BC content of residential emissions means that mitigation of this sector may also reduce short-term anthropogenic warming (Anenberg et al, 2012;Unger et al, 2010). However, aerosol emissions from the residential sector are subject to large uncertainties in their magnitude and composition Carter et al, 2016;Coffey et al, 2017;Secrest et al, 2017;Stockwell et al, 2015;Zhang et al, 2009). This combination of high uncertainty and high impact is driving research into improving estimates of residential sector emissions (Klimont et al, 2017;Zhang et al, 2018) and better understanding of their impacts on climate (Butt et al, 2016;Gao et al, 2018;Lacey & Henze, 2015;Li et al, 2015).…”